Hon'ble PATEL, J.—The present Appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30.12.1995 passed by the Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1244 of 1995 whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation at Rs.9,55,432/- with interest @ 12% p.a. 2. The short facts of the case are that when deceased Galabhai Charaniya on 23.11.1991 was returning from his service by walking towards Baroda, at that time, driver of tempo was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with deceased Galabhai, who sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Such gave rise to the claim petition for compensation being Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1244 of 1992 and the compensation claimed was of Rs.11 lacs by the members of the family of the deceased. The Tribunal at the conclusion of the claim petition passed the aforesaid judgment and award. Under the circumstances, the present Appeal before this Court. 3. We have heard Mr. Amin with Ms. Yajnik for the appellant. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant raised the first contention that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is erroneous. He made two fold submissions. (I) In the assessment of the income considered for dependency benefit, the deduction of Rs.1,000/- instead of one-third of the amount was erroneous and, (ii) that the Tribunal ought not to have awarded multiplier of 12 for the purpose of awarding compensation. He submitted that if both the aspects are considered, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is erroneous and therefore, this Court may consider the same for the purpose of reduction of the compensation. 5. As such, if the Appeal is to be considered as per law prevailing now, it appears from the evidence discussed by the Tribunal at page 19 onwards that the deceased was serving with Food Corporation of India as Asstt.Gd.(Depot) and was earning Rs. 5,253.50 p.m. If the principles of prospective income are considered by doubling the same and make it half, such amount would come to Rs.7,879/- p.m. Further, out of the said amount as number of claimants were exceeding three, the appropriate deduction towards personal expenses shall be one-fourth of the amount and not one-third. Such amount would come to Rs.1,969/- towards personal expenses and if deducted from the income assessed at Rs.7,879/- the net amount would come to Rs.5,910/- for the purpose of dependency benefit. Such amount would come to Rs.1,969/- towards personal expenses and if deducted from the income assessed at Rs.7,879/- the net amount would come to Rs.5,910/- for the purpose of dependency benefit. As against the same, the Tribunal has considered the amount of Rs.5,149/- p.m. for the purpose of dependency benefit. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is more as sought to be canvassed by the learned Counsel for the appellant. 6. The second contention that the multiplier applied of 12 years was erroneous also should not detain us further. As per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) SCC Pg.121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC) and more particularly the observation made in paragraph no. 42 of the decision shows that for the age group of 41 to 45 years, the appropriate multiplier would be 14, as the age of the deceased was 42 years. As against the same, the Tribunal has granted multiplier of 12 which cannot be said on higher side as sought to be canvassed. 7. Under these circumstances, both the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. 8. The learned Counsel for the appellant attempted to contend that keeping in view the evidence which came on record that on account of the death of the deceased, son of the deceased was offered an employment by Food Corporation of India, the multiplier should have been reduced by the Tribunal. We cannot accept the submission for the simple reason that any benefit extended to the deceased or his family members on account of the service or as per the policy of Food Corporation of India, cannot be allowed to be made as ground for reduction of the liability of the tortfeasor. In any case, neither the owner of the vehicle nor the driver nor the insurance company of the vehicle who is otherwise responsible for the accident and consequently liable to pay the damages cannot be allowed to take benefit of such circumstances, 9. Hence, the said contention cannot be accepted. No other contention is raised. 10. In view of the above, the appeal is meritless, hence dismissed.